Quote:
Originally Posted by zmix  Could you please be a bit more specific about how you define the modulation 'types' instead of grouping the 480 , pcm96 and m7? The pcm96 alone has at least three different modulation types. |
#1 Interpolation (liniear, allpass, lagrange etc) of delay lines by sine, tri, ran - obvious chorus effect
#2 Crossfading between taps (which probably is close related to both #1 and #3, depending how you define interpolation and coefficients manipulation)
#3 Coefficients manipulation - ex. change the values in the FDN matrix
Quote:
Originally Posted by zmix , I think it's a gross simplification to state that I prefer 'obvious chorus like modulation" because in fact I detest the 'obvious chorus type modulation' in artificial reverb. The paper I cited by David Griesinger is a very good example of how a perceptual goal can be used in a reverb design, particularly when exploring modulation for realism's sake. |
I would say that obvious chorus like modulation is present on the concert hall algorithms from the 224(XL) and the EMT250 algorithm - it's still a chorus like modulation if you use a pseudo random generator for the modulation. It can be implemented differently - good or bad. I said that it
sounded like you have a preference for this kind modulation, since both the EMT250 and the Concert Hall algorithm are in your top 3 reverbs and they have an obvious chorus effect. And it seems that you're most interested in discussing the behaviour of those two algorithms
